Tax Appeals Decisions for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 Upheld

The appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the revenue for the same assessment years were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld various decisions of the CIT(A) and AO regarding disallowances, deductions, and treatment of certain expenditures and losses, following precedents and legal provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D.
2. Disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB).
3. Allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit.
4. Loss on forward contracts.
5. Loss on long term forward contracts.
6. Loss from restatement of working capital loan.
7. Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii).
8. Treatment of focus marketing subsidy received from Government as capital receipt.
9. Additional depreciation on assets acquired in the second half of the preceding Assessment Year.
10. Depreciation on UPS.
11. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D.
12. Loss on unrealized exchange loss in respect of derivative transactions.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D:
The assessee's ground regarding disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D was dismissed as not pressed since relief was already allowed by the AO while giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order.

2. Disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB):
The AO disallowed the excess expenditure over what was certified by DSIR. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and rejected the ground taken by the assessee for both assessment years.

3. Allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit:
The assessee did not press this ground as the AO allowed the claim while giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

4. Loss on forward contracts:
The assessee did not press this ground as relief was already granted by the AO following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

5. Loss on long term forward contracts:
Similarly, the assessee did not press this ground as relief was granted by the AO following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

6. Loss from restatement of working capital loan:
The Tribunal found no error in the AO's disallowance of interest on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings. The AO was directed to verify and allow depreciation as per law.

7. Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii):
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) as the borrowed capital was for acquisition of capital assets. The AO was directed to verify and allow depreciation as per law.

8. Treatment of focus marketing subsidy received from Government as capital receipt:
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds filed by the assessee but upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the focus market scheme subsidy is revenue in nature, following the ITAT's decision in Hyundai Motors India Ltd vs ACIT.

9. Additional depreciation on assets acquired in the second half of the preceding Assessment Year:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) following the Madras High Court's decision in Brakes India Ltd vs DCIT.

10. Depreciation on UPS:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing 60% depreciation on UPS, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

11. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D as no exempt income was received by the assessee.

12. Loss on unrealized exchange loss in respect of derivative transactions:
The assessee did not press this ground as relief was granted by the AO following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the revenue for the same assessment years were dismissed.

---